Alfonso J. and Elena L. Diaz del Castillo - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
               In response to respondent’s July 7, 2004, 30-day letter,               
          petitioners sent a letter, dated July 24, 2004, along with their            
          check in the amount of $1,153.23 to respondent.  In that letter,            
          petitioners explained that the $8,448 claimed contribution                  
          carryover deduction was an error attributable to Turbotax                   
          software.  In a September 7, 2004, letter, respondent answered              
          petitioners’ July 24 letter, and among other matters, advised               
          petitioners that the changes to their 2001 tax return resulted in           
          a total tax obligation (apparently including interest to August             
          6, 2004) of $2,528.77.  Respondent, on November 5, 2004, sent               
          petitioners a statutory notice of deficiency for their 2001 year            
          determining an income tax deficiency in the amount of $2,327.40.            
          Petitioners thereafter commenced this proceeding.                           
                                        OPINION                                       
               The controverted item in this case is an $8,448 contribution           
          carryover deduction.  Petitioners do not contend that they were             
          entitled to that deduction.  Instead, they make a collateral                
          attack, contending, alternatively, that respondent’s deficiency             
          notice was invalid, or that respondent agreed to a lesser                   
          deficiency, or that the tax preparation software manufacturer is            
          liable.                                                                     
               Petitioners’ first argument is that the 2001 notice of                 
          deficiency is invalid.  Petitioners argue that the notice has               
          errors and does not reflect the correct amount of income tax                






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011